§

Wilton et al. V. Wilton et al. V. Van Deutekom

13550210 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)
Wilton et al. V. Wilton et al. V. Van Deutekom

20 Cited authorities

  1. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyokabushiki Co.

    535 U.S. 722 (2002)   Cited 815 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he scope of a patent is not limited to its literal terms but instead embraces all equivalents to the claims described," because "[t]he language in the patent claims may not capture every nuance of the invention or describe with complete precision the range of its novelty."

  2. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

    569 U.S. 576 (2013)   Cited 454 times   147 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated"

  3. In re Berger

    279 F.3d 975 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Declining to consider the merits of indefiniteness rejections not contested before the Board

  4. Regents of the University of California v. University of Iowa Research Foundation

    455 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 9 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Regents, this Court explained that a party can defeat a § 135(b)(1) bar by showing "that claims filed after the critical date find support in the claims filed before the critical date" and explained that the relationship between post- and pre-critical date claims is "dispositive of the section 135(b)(1) question."

  5. U.S. v. Marquez

    291 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 12 times
    Treating as jurisdictional the "strict time limit" for filing a motion for a new trial under Rule 33

  6. Adair v. Carter

    668 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 3 times   2 Legal Analyses

    No. 2011–1212. 2012-03-26 John Robert ADAIR, Diljeet Singh Athwal, and John Spencer Emtage, Appellants, v. Paul J. CARTER and Leonard G. Presta, Appellees. Doreen Yatko Trujillo, Cozen O'Connor, P.C., of Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellants. With her on the brief was Kyle Vos Strache. Oliver R. Ashe, Jr., Ashe, P.C., of Reston, Virginia, argued for appellees. Of counsel on the brief were Jeffrey P. Kushan and Rachel H. Townsend, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC. LINN Doreen Yatko Trujillo

  7. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Monsanto Technology LLC

    671 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    No. 2011–1285. 2012-02-28 PIONEER HI–BRED INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellant, v. MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC, Appellee. Joseph Lucci, Woodcock Washburn, LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. With him on the brief were John P. Donohue, Jr., S. Maurice Valla and John F. Murphy. Robert E. Hanson, SNR Denton US LLP, of Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Steven G. Spears, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, of Houston, TX, and Lawrence M. Lavin, Jr., Monsanto Technology LLC, of St.

  8. Parks v. Fine

    773 F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 9 times
    Holding in an interference case that “[t]he insertion of limitation to overcome the examiner's rejection is strong, if not conclusive, evidence of materiality ”

  9. Corbett v. Chisholm

    568 F.2d 759 (C.C.P.A. 1977)   Cited 15 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that Congressional intent behind the predecessor to section 135(b), i.e., R.S. 4903, "was clearly to enact a statute of repose . . . so that the patentee might be more secure in his property right"

  10. Section 112 - Specification

    35 U.S.C. § 112   Cited 7,329 times   1038 Legal Analyses
    Requiring patent applications to include a "specification" that provides, among other information, a written description of the invention and of the manner and process of making and using it

  11. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,973 times   986 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  12. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,468 times   2251 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  13. Section 135 - Derivation proceedings

    35 U.S.C. § 135   Cited 287 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Governing interferences

  14. Section 5 - Patent and Trademark Office Public Advisory Committees

    35 U.S.C. § 5   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES.- (1) APPOINTMENT.-The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall have a Patent Public Advisory Committee and a Trademark Public Advisory Committee, each of which shall have nine voting members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce. In each year, 3 members shall be appointed to each Advisory Committee for 3-year terms that shall begin on December 1 of that year. Any vacancy on

  15. Section 41.121 - Motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.121   Cited 15 times   77 Legal Analyses

    (a)Types of motions - (1)Substantive motions. Consistent with the notice of requested relief, if any, and to the extent the Board authorizes, a party may file a motion: (i) To redefine the scope of the contested case, (ii) To change benefit accorded for the contested subject matter, or (iii) For judgment in the contested case. (2)Responsive motions. The Board may authorize a party to file a motion to amend or add a claim, to change inventorship, or otherwise to cure a defect raised in a notice of

  16. Section 41.201 - Definitions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.201   Cited 15 times   15 Legal Analyses

    In addition to the definitions in §§ 41.2 and 41.100 , the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart: Accord benefit means Board recognition that a patent application provides a proper constructive reduction to practice under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) . Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) , in a patent application of the subject matter of a count. Earliest constructive reduction to practice means the first constructive

  17. Section 41.127 - Judgment

    37 C.F.R. § 41.127   Cited 9 times   15 Legal Analyses

    (a)Effect within Office - (1)Estoppel. A judgment disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party's failure to move, except that a losing party shall not be estopped with respect to any contested subject matter for which that party was awarded a favorable judgment. (2)Final disposal

  18. Section 41.125 - Decision on motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.125   Cited 8 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Allowing the Board to take up motions for decision in any order

  19. Section 41.208 - Content of substantive and responsive motions

    37 C.F.R. § 41.208   Cited 6 times   60 Legal Analyses

    The general requirements for motions in contested cases are stated at § 41.121(c) . (a) In an interference, substantive motions must: (1) Raise a threshold issue, (2) Seek to change the scope of the definition of the interfering subject matter or the correspondence of claims to the count, (3) Seek to change the benefit accorded for the count, or (4) Seek judgment on derivation or on priority. (b) To be sufficient, a motion must provide a showing, supported with appropriate evidence, such that, if

  20. Section 41.8 - Mandatory notices

    37 C.F.R. § 41.8   Cited 2 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) In an appeal brief (§§ 41.37 , 41.67 , or 41.68 ) or at the initiation of a contested case (§ 41.101 ), and within 20 days of any change during the proceeding, a party must identify: (1) Its real party-in-interest, and (2) Each judicial or administrative proceeding that could affect, or be affected by, the Board proceeding. (b) For contested cases, a party seeking judicial review of a Board proceeding must file a notice with the Board of the judicial review within 20 days of the filing of the